What is Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India authority for?

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 271(1B) of the Income-tax Act. For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is deemed recorded if the assessment or reassessment order includes a direction for such initiation.

How many judgments cite Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India (317 ITR 107), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 153A, Section 14A, Section 274, Section 271(1B).

Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India (317 ITR 107)

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/IND/2024[2009 -2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.757/Ind/2024 (AY 2010-11) M/s. Pumarth ACIT 4(1) बनाम/ Infrastructure Private Indore Vs. Limited, 5/5A, Navratan Bagh, Near Geeta Bhawan Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACM0901H Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned thre…

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…M/s. Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited ITA Nos. 766/Ind/2024, 757/Ind/2024, 765/Ind/2024 AYs: 2009-10 to 2011-12 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. The background facts leading to present appeals are as under: (i) The assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 11.10.1982 and engaged in the business of real estate development. At the relevant time, the assessee developed two projects named “Pumarth Park" and "Pumarth Meadows". A search and seizure u/s 132 was carried upon “Apollo Group/Pumarth Group of Indore” including asse…

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/IND/2024[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.757/Ind/2024 (AY 2010-11) M/s. Pumarth ACIT 4(1) बनाम/ Infrastructure Private Indore Vs. Limited, 5/5A, Navratan Bagh, Near Geeta Bhawan Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACM0901H Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned thre…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hol…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Vs. JCIT (2013) 353 ITR 206 (Kar.), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107, held that where assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hol…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 57/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 56/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 55/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 54/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 53/PAT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 52/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.52 to 57/PAT/2021 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 to 2014-15) ACIT, Patliputra Builders Limited Central Circle -2, 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP0629B Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Rinku Singh, DR Date of hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner o…

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(s) by : No(s) ITA No(s)/ Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 1. 584/Ahd/2023 1999-2000 Chhaya Vikas Shah The Dy.CIT…

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…penalties deserve to be quashed as not sustainable in the eye of law. Ordered accordingly.” 12. The Ld. Departmental Representative while arguing the Appeal heavily relied on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhushree Gupta reported in 317 ITR 107 Delhi. First of all, Madhushree Gupta Delhi High Court decision was rendered by the Division Bench and not by the Full Bench as stated by the Id. DR. The said decision is reported in 317 ITR 107 (Del). The said Judgment of Delhi High Court Decision in the case of Madhushree Gupta (supra) is for the proposition that the addition made in the qu…

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…penalties deserve to be quashed as not sustainable in the eye of law. Ordered accordingly.” 12. The Ld. Departmental Representative while arguing the Appeal heavily relied on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhushree Gupta reported in 317 ITR 107 Delhi. First of all, Madhushree Gupta Delhi High Court decision was rendered by the Division Bench and not by the Full Bench as stated by the Id. DR. The said decision is reported in 317 ITR 107 (Del). The said Judgment of Delhi High Court Decision in the case of Madhushree Gupta (supra) is for the proposition that the addition made in the qu…

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…penalties deserve to be quashed as not sustainable in the eye of law. Ordered accordingly.” 12. The Ld. Departmental Representative while arguing the Appeal heavily relied on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhushree Gupta reported in 317 ITR 107 Delhi. First of all, Madhushree Gupta Delhi High Court decision was rendered by the Division Bench and not by the Full Bench as stated by the Id. DR. The said decision is reported in 317 ITR 107 (Del). The said Judgment of Delhi High Court Decision in the case of Madhushree Gupta (supra) is for the proposition that the addition made in the qu…

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…Our finding of fact is that the assessee has not voluntarily offered the income to tax. In fact the explanation given is in our opinion not bonafide... (ii) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms.Madhushree Gupta vs. UOI and another (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107 has laid down that prima facie satisfaction of the AO that the case may be served imposition of penalty should be discernible from the order passed during the course of the proceedings. In the case on hand the prima facie satisfaction of the AO is discernible from the assessment order. At para 36, page 128 of this order the Hon’ble Court has obse…

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…Our finding of fact is that the assessee has not voluntarily offered the income to tax. In fact the explanation given is in our opinion not bonafide... (ii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms.Madhushree Gupta vs. UOI and another (2009) reported in 317 ITR 107 has laid down that prima facie satisfaction of the AO that the case may be served imposition of penalty should be discernible from the order passed during the course of the proceedings. In the case on hand the prima facie satisfaction of the AO is discernible from the assessment order. At para 36, page 128 of this order the Hon'ble Court has obse…

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…on 271(1B) of the Act, still a prima facie satisfaction of Assessing Officer that the case may deserve imposition of penalty should be discernible from the order passed during the course of assessment proceedings Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Delhi). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also pointed out that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B) of the Act. If Section 271(1B) Act is read in isolation, the Assessing Officer would be in such a situation to pick a case for initiation of penalty merely because there is an addition or disallowance without ar…

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1713/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Sharma-Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…fered by assessee in return of income was deleted since no penalty was initiated by Ld. AO for the same in the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty could not be levied in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ms. Madhushree Gupta V/s UOI (2009; 317 ITR 107). 5.4 Regarding balance disclosure as made in the return of income, it was observed by Ld. CIT(A) that search took place on 29/08/2011. The penalty could not be levied under main provision as the assessee had included the income in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) and the same was assessed as well. There was no variation between the returned…

Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India

What is Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI